Hotel stories straight to your inbox:

Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

Go To The Hotel's Web Site Where: Chicago, il, United States

April 9, 2007 at 9:30 AM | 4 Comments

This week we will be looking at some Chicago hotels, largely because we realized that we have New York, Miami, Los Angeles and San Fran well-covered but really nothing on the Windy City. If you have a question about the city's hotel scene, send it our way and we'll investigate. Even better, if you have hotel recommendation, we wanna hear it.

TripAdvisor's popularity rankings are somewhat dubious. They seem to be a mix of price and comfort. How else to explain that a Hilton Garden Inn is in the top ten for the city of Chicago? What's not in the TA top 10 or 20 for that matter is one of the two W Hotels. But Comfort Inn, Embassy Suites, and Fairfield Inn are.

Is it really possible that the two Ws are being bested by select service/budget hotels? We decided to investigate.

At the W Lakeshore, the first thing that caught our eye was the room price--over $400 a night. Then we noticed the reviews are consistently bad. This guest's experience seems to sum it up:

Small room; paper thin walls (had to endure a 30 minute intermittent alarm my first morning from an adjoining room at 6:30am); small bathrooms; inexplicable lack of privacy with the shutters and a sliding door for the bathroom; dust everywhere; low ceiling; a bit shabby furniture and yes, $25 dollar snacks. For the price - not a bargain.....The pool was good. Even though I cannot fathom(!) how you can have a sign by the pool stating that no single person alone can use the pool - so what about the hip, single executive wanting to recreate?

Furthermore, The Economist.com (they have a hotel review section?) says the hotel is stylish but filled with "camera-toting, sneaker-wearing holiday-makers" who flock to the Navy Pier. Other negatives "gimmicky design", a small lobby and loud music. One more quote from a guest to sum it up: "You are paying 5 star hotel prices for Hip Days Inn quality room experience."

See how Chicago's other W Hotel fared after the jump.

Sadly, the other W doesn't do any better. Over at the W Chicago City Center near the Loop, the price is still the same, and the reviews just as bad, maybe even worse. One person mentions bed bugs, others mention room thieves, loud music, $25 a day WiFi charge (someone else says $15), small rooms and crappy W-style service.

The cab driver and I had to unload and juggle my luggage in the freezing cold as the first doorman I saw stood inside the all glass outer lobby doors 15 feet away and watched us. He was nice enough to open the door - staying inside - as I finally approached it. He did not open the second set of doors - two additional door staff just inside those doors smiled nicely, but didn't open those doors or offer to take my bags. Perhaps they were all just decorative to add to the "club" ambiance?

It doesn't even seem as if the hotel's hip decor could satisfy these guests. Then again, not everyone loves a disco ball in the lobby. So now we understand why Embassy Suites beats out not one, but two W Hotels in Chicago. It's peaceful, wallet-friendly and best of all, WiFi is free.

According to our sources, W Hotels have been trying to freshen up their brand lately so that instead of just being a hipper than thou hotel experience, guest will be treated like actual hotel guest should. They have been hyping their Whatever/Whenever service all over, offering free wiFi in the hotel lobbies, and most importantly, making excellent service one of the focal points in the company's employee training.

So this is a no-brainer: W Hotel execs--quick, hurry on up over to your Chicago properties.

[First Photo: Stizer]

[Second Photo: DVD Movie1]

: /

Author Photo: juliana by juliana

4 Comments

Return to » Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

  1. ajb

    HotelChatter Member
    April 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM




    Re: Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

    Interestingly enough both hotel's websites do not show photos of the guestrooms. Something I would think would be almost a requirement for a hotel trying to sell rooms.

    After having a very successfull stay at the W in Montreal this past fall, I was excited to be going to Chicago where there were two W hotels located.

    I'm open to new experiences and was thoroughly happy with my W Montreal stay, but nothing on the hotel's own website could convince me to look past the high rates coupled with the lackluster reviews by others and book my stay there.

    I'm not willing to experiment with $400 a night of my own money when there are so many other choices in a city the size of chicago.  It's disappointing really, that I'm now looking elsewhere for a room for my June trip.

  1. markj

    HotelChatter
    April 10, 2007 at 4:38 PM




    Re: Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

    I would try the W City Center.  Why?  There was a cat fight there a couple years back--two bar tender girls.  Also, at least you can see photos of the rooms here.

  1. ajb

    HotelChatter Member
    April 12, 2007 at 4:50 AM




    Re: Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

    I just think a company that is in the business of putting heads in beds and is not confident enough in their guest rooms to show them on their own website says a lot. Other Starwood properties have guest room photos, so it's an intentional oversight i would say.

    Girl on Girl action ? Unless it's Crystal and Alexis in the reflecting pool of the Carrington Mansion, well it's just not a catfight to me.

  1. buccb

    HotelChatter Member
    April 17, 2007 at 5:19 PM




    Re: Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

    As a Chicago native, I was real excited when these properties opened and I've had an opportunity to stay at both.

    While the lobby scene at both hotels is a nice after-work/evening hangout spot, I must agree with the reviewers and say they are terrible places to lay one's head.

    They were both built/converted early in the chain's existence and you get the distinct feeling that W hadn't really gotten their act together at the time. Both properties were crappy hotels in great locations before W got a hold of them. W seemed to be hampered by the conditions and layouts of the original hotels and never found a way to overcome the obstacles. What was needed were gut-rehabs, instead, they were just remodeled.

    I like to see W give Chicago another shot with the knowledge and experience they've gained in the decade+ since they've done anything here. Maybe something in time for the Olympics ;)

Return to » Chicago Hotel Scene: Which W Hotel is Better?

Leave a Comment

Not yet a member? Click here to become a member.
Already a member? Login below:

Nickname:

Password:

Send us a tip